2023 (8) TMI 341 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of bail - Evasion of tax - obtaining GST number in the name of M/s Vinita Enterprises which was not found existing at the stated address - HELD THAT - Petitioner is being kept in preventive custody merely on an unfounded suspicion that if he is let out, he may either tamper with evidence and/or influence witnesses. There is no probability of tampering with the evidence as the same has already been seized by the investigating agency - Offence allegedly committed by petitioner is of non-violent nature and in that sense his release on bail is not a threat to society at large by committing any violent crime. Petitioner is not involved in any other case. It is stated that petitioner is a 40-year old person having wife and one minor daughter to look after, who are totally dependent on him as he is the only bread-winner and on his absence, they are living in sheer penury. Being a family man having responsibilities, clean antecedents and fixed abode, it is unlikely that he poses any flight risk and/or will flee from the trial proceedings - Co-accused of the petitioner has already been granted bail by this Court. Considering the overall scenario and without commenting on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the issue of bail application for the petitioner who is an undertrial in a case involving economic offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Grounds for Bail Application
The petitioner sought release on bail after being declined bail by the trial court, claiming false implication and lack of evidence against him. The prosecution alleged the petitioner's involvement in a fraud scheme related to GST numbers and transactions worth a significant amount.

Issue 2: Arguments Presented
The petitioner's counsel argued that the accusations were baseless, the petitioner was not named in the FIR, and no evidence directly linked him to the alleged offenses. The state counsel opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the economic offense and the potential for tampering with evidence.

Issue 3: Court's Analysis and Decision
After considering the arguments from both sides, the court noted that charges were not yet framed, the investigation was complete, and the trial was progressing slowly. The court emphasized that bail allows the accused to maintain freedom until guilt is determined and acknowledged the petitioner's prolonged preventive custody.

Issue 4: Basis for Granting Bail
The court found the offense non-violent, the petitioner's family dependence, clean record, and fixed abode as factors indicating no flight risk. The court also noted that a co-accused had already been granted bail, leading to the decision to grant bail to the petitioner.

Issue 5: Bail Order
The court allowed the bail petition, ordering the petitioner's release on bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The court warned that any involvement in new offenses while on bail could lead to bail cancellation.

Separate Judgment by the Judge:
The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Monga of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.